Oh man, if ND wiggles into consideration even as a partial member, we WILL see that GoR taken to court.

Regardless, the ACC needs to be careful of what they wish for. If we got an ACC CCG of FSU-Clemson, the likelihood of that Iron Bowl rematch for the NC could have been muuuch stronger. Yeah, the ACC would still have sent two schools to BCS bowls, but they'd be afterthoughts, just like the B1G, B12, and PAC delegation.

The ACC just demonstrated the value of the current system, and came home a champ. To risk that just for better tv? Hope it's worth it...

Now, if the ACC somehow allows Notre Dame to wiggle into it without being a full conference member for fb...

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

Oh man, if ND wiggles into consideration even as a partial member, we WILL see that GoR taken to court.

Notre Dame is scheduled to play 4 ACC fb teams in 2014. But to make up for that, ND will play 6 ACC teams in 2015. After that (2016 onward), playing 5 is suppose to be consistent. It appears home-to-home games with ND have some flexibility on venues. For example, Syracuse's upcoming games with ND are to be at MetLife Stadium.

It is evident the ACC shall hold ND to those five game commitments. Some of those ACC schools, when their turn, will not give up home field advantages and opt for neutral sites/venues.

There had been some discussion of a three-pod system in the ACC at 5 each involving all 15 ACC schools. Each school plays the other 4 members of their assigned pod, and play two each from the other two pods in rotating fashion; or if a 9-game format, play three from one pod, and two from another, also in a rotation format. This could be one good way of picking the overall "two-best" for the CCG.

If the ACC adapts a model whereby a divisional champ may or may not be in the CCG, this really demeans the value of working to win a division. Having two teams from the same division, or one or both being runner-ups' from opposite divisions, shall be very controversial. Resorting to polling or a selection committee is not going to be an all-clean process.

But Notre Dame will not cooperate on a divisional or pod model if it means full conference fb. ND wants to retain that independent fb label under any circumstances. But that 3-pod model involving ND as a full participant would work nicely for 15 schools.

Why not planning to add a 16th member, and have Notre Dame finish it's FB independence, and having a 4-pod/9-conference game system, whether that 16th member should be UConn, Cincinnati or West Virginia?

But Notre Dame will not cooperate on a divisional or pod model if it means full conference fb. ND wants to retain that independent fb label under any circumstances. But that 3-pod model involving ND as a full participant would work nicely for 15 schools.

Above is how I'd do it regionally. I kept the 3 North Carolina schools together who make up the "big 3" in that state. Unfortunately here, you pretty much get a battle every year in the South. The Central would be okay and have a chance occasionally. The North would actually be good for Notre Dame since they'd get 2 of they're rivals every year in Pittsburgh and Boston College. I do know that Notre Dame likes playing Miami FL as of late, so I don't know if you switch Miami FL with someone like Louisville or Syracuse?

By Talent - this is always a bad way to do it because you don't know how teams will look in 2 years, let alone 10I split who I would consider the top 6, then split up everyone else by rivals firstAtlantic: Florida St, Virginia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, DukeCoastal: Clemson, Louisville, North Carolina St, Wake Forest, SyracuseEastern: Miami FL, Notre Dame, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech

A cooperative scheduling agreement with the SEC could work, but only partially.

Assuming Clemson (SC), FSU (UF), GT (UGA), and L'ville (UK) keep their rivalries for this. Add in Vandy (who play WFU regularly). That accounts for 5.To go further and hypothetically, with some reasoning, say UNC schedules U. Tenn (from a contiguous state). That is 6. Add Auburn to play Miami (went to one of those games at Auburn years ago before Miami got strong). That is 7. To go even further, say, NC State agrees to play Miss. State, and Ole Miss agrees to play Duke. That's 8 and 9. And suppose, VPI would be connected to Tenn. (if UNC had another), or Alabama, or Arkansas. That would be 10. UVA could be connected to Arkansas, if available, or a switch with one of the Mississippi schools. That's 11.

Even if some of the above are big stretches, it get's more problematic: Who could Pitt, Syracuse, and BC connect to in the SEC? Would LSU want to play any of those on a regular basis? Would Arkansas or Alabama really want an ACC regular?If Texas A&M resumes the rivalry with Texas, would TA&M be agreeable or even open to play a regular ACC game? TeA&M already has So. Car. (far east of the SEC) scheduled as the new regular divisional cross-over.What if Mizzou and Kansas agree to renew their rivalry? Mizzou already goes east/southeast for their divisional games.

There's the basic problem of top to bottom matchups with the SEC. There is a significant plurality of SEC strong teams compared to what the ACC currently delivers.

I actually like the idea of a power conference scheduling top to bottom game matchups with another conference. The failed PAC12--B1G plan was an earlier effort for the idea. However for the ACC, maybe do what they can with the SEC given there is already some foundation for it. And maybe for those ACC schools (particularly in the north) whereby finding SEC opponents would be particularly difficult, look individually for those +1 matchups from other conferences (particularly the expanded B1G). Pitt could "try" to do something with WVU or Penn State or another. Syracuse or BC could try for Rutgers, for example. Given some time and once the lawsuits are settled and anger subsides, Maryland could be willing to play an ACC school regularly.

Playing 9 power conference schools, in conference and/or with an OOC, sounds reasonable for every school in a power conference. Also, allowing a school to schedule 2 or 3 games, with whomever, to fit their individual needs, should be reasonable as well. So, playing a couple of games with FBS non-power conferences schools or having a game with a FCS school, if desired, could be accommodated. Major schools want those 7 home games. Schedule power-ratings remain so each has to consider that.

Pitt complaining, when they canceled with WVU and lost playing Penn State regularly, shouldn't garner a lot of sympathy.Similarly, Syracuse wants more home visits from preferred competition that they could not achieve otherwise without a 9 conference game mandate.And, the Notre Dame scheduling factor continues to be cited as being a complication. ACC wanted old Big East schools with special Notre Dame arrangements. They brought aboard their issues as well.

The SEC may not help the ACC fix it. Too many of the SEC schools may balk.

It's a logical crossover for those two conferences as most of those guys have history with each other. Crossovers are sort of a cheap way to address expansion, as the Big Ten was hoping B1G-PAC would accomplish.

Still, the SEC wants into NC and VA. This arrangement isn't quite what they had in mind.

Still, the SEC wants into NC and VA. This arrangement isn't quite what they had in mind.

Indeed, when it comes to expansion. Believe 16 is the real target for both the SEC and the BIG but is not a coop plan with each other. The SEC shall be patient. It shall take a few more years. Much to absorb and adjust to already. Do the ground work with cultivating inroads, i. e. media connections, attention to and associations with Charlotte, strategic scheduling when possible, using network influences. SEC is not out to destroy the ACC, nor do they want future B1G expansion into the deeper south.

In the NC 4, the school, comparatively speaking, allegedly less bonded to the group is NC State. UNC/Duke viewed as a pair, and would explore any feasible avenue NOT to ever leave the ACC. The SEC getting into Virginia would be real difficult also.

My pie-in-the-sky pod system would be 4 pods of 5 teams. North, East and South from the existing ACC. West from the B12 - Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Kansas (Baylor as 2nd choice). I think this could be balanced fairly closely for football, basketball and baseball.

Yeah, FSU was one of the pusher's for the ACC's GoR. FSU will be around in the ACC for a long time to come. FSU better hope those ACC championships keep coming and they are a regular for the new playoffs. Otherwise, they'll be out of threats to go elsewhere if fb success gets sour again.

Yeah, FSU was one of the pusher's for the ACC's GoR. FSU will be around in the ACC for a long time to come. FSU better hope those ACC championships keep coming and they are a regular for the new playoffs. Otherwise, they'll be out of threats to go elsewhere if fb success gets sour again.

I don't think it's success...it's that good-faith ACC network revenue they'll keep Swofford to. Barron pretty much said the ACC wasn't going to give them top dollar...more like "top-like" dollar. That was good enough for him. It might not be good enough for the next guy.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum